From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,e6a2e4a4c0d7d8a6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-02-23 11:19:47 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!news.xtra.co.nz!53ab2750!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: status of PL/I as a viable language From: Berend de Boer Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.090014 (Oort Gnus v0.14) Emacs/21.2 (i386-msvc-nt5.0.2195) References: <3E51908E.9CCA3412@adaworks.com> <8Gh4a.7455$_c6.743959@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net> <3E51ABCE.5491B9A2@adaworks.com> <3E5273DE.2050206@cox.net> <3E531E6F.BDFB2599@adaworks.com> <3E546C45.4010406@cox.net> <3E54F926.441D5BB5@adaworks.com> <1045763933.848350@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <42EA55F4BE83950E.F1DA277C2FDC157B.C804C1C52FE95D65@lp.airnews.net> <1045769690.126389@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <2lb33b.7d6.ln@jellix.jlfencey.com> <1045772065.590669@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <1045839283.86671@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> Cancel-Lock: sha1:JJV2CdqosKJlnuhfKO38lqIMxVY= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 08:19:01 +1300 NNTP-Posting-Host: 219.88.64.124 X-Complaints-To: newsadmin@xtra.co.nz X-Trace: news.xtra.co.nz 1046027987 219.88.64.124 (Mon, 24 Feb 2003 08:19:47 NZDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 08:19:47 NZDT Organization: Xtra Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:34485 Date: 2003-02-24T08:19:01+13:00 List-Id: >>>>> "Hyman" == Hyman Rosen writes: Hyman> I've mentioned this many times before. Language checks such Hyman> as bounds checking, pointer checking, and overflow checking Hyman> are fine for testing. But when the application is released, Hyman> it is better to disable such checks in cases where Hyman> continued operation is important, because it's more likely Hyman> that a program which "gets away" with making such an error Hyman> can keep working, whereas detecting the error will just Hyman> blow the program away. I'm pretty sure that with those checks included we would have zero buffer overflow errors and your credit card info would be a lot safer. -- Regards, Berend. (-: